[boost] Re: 1.29.0?

From: Gennaro Prota (gennaro_prota_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-17 12:12:49

On Tue, 17 Sep 2002 08:51:04 -0400, Douglas Gregor <gregod_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

>[...]
>I would strongly prefer to have wrapped up 1.29.0 this week, released, then 
>gone on with destabilizing merges. We haven't released since May, and there 
>are already a huge number of changes (6 new libraries, with major upgrades to 
>3 other libraries); on the personal side, I really want the Function changes 
>to get out into a released version of Boost before the proposal is discussed 
>in Santa Cruz so that the new syntax is available in a stable version of 
>Boost.

Your post and Mr. Abrahams reply have really surprised me. Not only I
have been recently said that there are no actual criteria to decide a
release, but I've always thought that the purpose of boost was to
estabilish 'existing practice'. Now I hear that someone is in a hurry
to get something released so that it can be seen at one of the
committee meetings which contradicts both the 'no criteria' and the
'existing practice' idea. How can something that nobody has used yet
be existing practice?

Genny.